memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Context Is for Kings (episode)
Renaming This (and a bunch of other articles) were moved, all to capitalize the word 'is' or 'it'. While the impetus by the user who moved all of these was good, based on Memory Alpha:Naming conventions, my strong feeling is that these moves to capitalize 'is' and 'it' were incorrect (perhaps the naming conventions policy needs tweaking a bit to correct it). I do wish that mass renames like this were discussed, but sometimes, as we all know, that does not happen. Anyone else have thoughts on this? (Note that StarTrek.com refers to the capitalization for this episode as "Context is for Kings".) -- sulfur (talk) 09:52, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :At work, so, briefly - IMO, naming conventions should not override EDIT: clear evidence of the actual /EDIT name of a thing (cf ATFW, ATFP - it's right there on the cover!). :Here, I took the capitalisation from the TrekCore article announcing it, so I assume that was in line with whatever source info they received. The CBS announcement video displayed it all in caps, and we now know there will be no title cards (unless they change that decision!), so there is unlikely to be any further help there. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 10:09, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::Without a script or a quote I'd say go with the with the website. -- Compvox (talk) 10:42, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::: This does bring an interesting problem to light: :::*Here are some existing examples of variation in use of "is": and , but also and :::* There are several inconsistencies found in "of", "the", and "a", the following are the capitalized exceptions to what are otherwise lowercase titles in database: , , , , , . --Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:29, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :I think that last set are examples of my first point, Alan - we've taken the casing of the title card over what would be considered the naming conventions. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:05, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::: Agreed. "Please refer to naming conventions" would apply when the episode titles are all caps, unless it's and (I guess). Out of curiosity, was there a title card for either of the first two episodes? --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:14, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :I believe the latter is based on the script, judging from Memory Alpha:Episode data project/titles. And, no, no title card (at least, not on Netflix). -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:47, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::: Why would we follow the styling on a title card rather than apply standard English norms? Shall we move to STAR TREK DISCOVERY? It is easier and more logical to just stick to a standard English capitalization style rather than have random exceptions based on how someone chose to typset a given cover. Otherwise, we will have ''THE CAPTAIN’S DAUGHTER'' rather than The Captain's Daughter (note the typographic apostrophe), ''STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE MISSION γ GAMMA BOOK THREE OF FOUR CATHEDRAL'' rather than Cathedral, ''STAR TREK THE ORIGINAL SERIES CHILD OF TWO WORLDS'' rather than Child of Two Worlds (note that I can't seem to get the drop caps to work on "of" but the CSS is there...), etc. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 16:51, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::: And why would someone move "The Tree of Life, the Branches of Heaven" back to "The Tree of Life, The Branches of Heaven"? Why would "the" be capitalized mid-title? Note that it is also correctly titled on . This is just random. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 16:56, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::While there are no title cards, the episode title will be shown in the CBS All Access and Netflix menu. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 22:30, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::For another example of pretty absurd adherence: All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek (which I am moving to proper capitalization). By all means, we can have a rule that says that article titles need to be styled like they are on covers or titlecards but that's not what the policy is and it opens up a huge can of worms for many, many problems. Using standard English capitalization is the rule and is sensible. It's not perfect but it's infinitely more replicable, intuitive, and requires much less conjecturing on how an article should be titled. I'm suggesting that we stick with the current standard and until there is consensus to do otherwise (i.e. changing the actual policy page), then I'll be operating under that assumption. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 20:50, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::Alternately, see These Are the Voyages... which had arbitrary capitalizations of "are" in a previous revision but those titles aren't styled to match a cover--e.g. CCG: These Are the Voyages, where the cover art is in all caps anyway. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:13, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::: First of all, please keep your place in the talk page indent line. Second, yes, some of this you speak is true, but you are also talking about a content policy that predates the exceptions, namely the precedence where we mimic titles as they are written, re: "All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek". Third, please stop moving pages being discussed, or related to pages being discussed, before anyone else places any input in the discussion. Sort of what was already said in the very first line of this talk page. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:27, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::Actually, User:Gvsualan, I was not replying to another's comment, so I should not have used the colons to indent it. Furthermore, you directly responded to my comment with two less colons. I deliberately did not move anything that anyone could deem contentious--are you suggesting that the ones I mentioned above are? I'll be happy to wait until you think there is some kind of consensus to change the policy--how long do you suggest? —Justin (koavf)·T· · 06:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Actually, MA:TALK. This isn't Wikipedia. This isn't the Peanuts wiki, Indenting stays consistent so that it's easy to tell who is who. -- sulfur (talk) 09:40, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::...You didn't indent the post above... —Justin (koavf)·T· · 15:45, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::: He started the discussion, he doesn't have to. I was the 4th person to join this discussion, that's why I have 3 colons. You joined after I did, so you add a +1. Simple math. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:47, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::You indent to what you're replying to not some number of when you joined the conversation. You're making it impossible for blind users to follow this using a screen reader. Please don't change the correct formatting of my comments. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 22:06, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::::This is Memory Alpha, not Wikipedia. We use the system that we use, not what Wikipedia uses, so Wikipedia policy is not relevant. The system has worked well for most of the 15 years this site has been active, with few complaints. 31dot (talk) 22:51, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::I didn't mention Wikipedia, so I don't know why you did. Can you please explain why you are saying irrelevant things? —Justin (koavf)·T· · 01:30, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Whatever it is you cited above, it is not MA policy and irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 01:50, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Actually, MediaWiki software is what powers Memory Alpha so it is relevant. You can also see the equivalent tutorial from Wikia: "To respond to a talk page message, simply edit that section of the talk page, and indent your reply. You can indent by putting a colon (":") at the front of each line." In order to respond to comments, you should add one additional colon. Again, this also makes it parsable by other agents, so it's very valuable for accessibility. Between the way that the software is designed and the cross-site recommendations, I think that is what should change--if you want to identify who said what, that is easily accomplished by looking at a signature at the end of the comment. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 02:10, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::For that matter, the CSS on the site can be changed to make comment flow more obvious if that's a concern of the community. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 02:12, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::: You point is moot. We already cited MA guidelines. Anything else is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. PS you are on the fringe of breaking MA:POINT with this and the page move stuff. So tread carefully. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 05:08, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Well, I cited the guideline for the page move but it seems like others want to ignore it. I'm confused as to the role of having these guidelines if they are applied capriciously. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 06:03, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::MediaWiki does not dictate policies to us or otherwise control how we operate. If you want to change the structure of talk page discussions that we have had for many years quite successfully, please discuss it at Ten Forward. Otherwise, please respect these longstanding processes. 31dot (talk) 09:38, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Regarding the actual issue here, though there are no title cards, the next best thing is how the episode title is displayed in the All Access menu, since that's currently the only way to access the episode. I'm assuming Netflix overseas is the same, but if it isn't, then we should defer to CBS(since they own the series directly). If scripts are released in the future, then we could use that. 31dot (talk) 09:42, September 30, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Sorry if this has already been stated, but the Netflix menu formats the titles as "The Vulcan Hello" and "Battle at the Binary Stars". --Defiant (talk) 13:57, September 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::31dot, if I'm understanding correctly, it is you who are unilaterally ignoring policy on the site. Perhaps you would like to post a proposed change to that forum or revert yourself so that you are in line with policy regarding page names. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:20, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Our practice is to use capitalization as per the print (ie, covers, title cards, production sources, etc). When those fail, we flip back over to the policy. -- sulfur (talk) 22:07, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Forum topic Please see Forum:Do we want to ignore or follow the policy on page name capitalization?. —Justin (koavf)·T· · 21:28, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Capitalization Starting a new section instead of adding to the mess above. CBS All Access titles this episode "Context Is for Kings". Is this also the case for Netflix? -- UncertainError (talk) 03:16, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :It's "Context is for Kings" on Netflix. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 08:57, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::As I suggest above, IMO we should defer to CBS's wording/capitalization as they own Star Trek directly where Netflix is a third party airing Star Trek. 31dot (talk) 11:27, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) The talk page so far has been about "the mess above". Title card (none, N/A), CBS AA (now)/Netflix (moot per CBS AA), final script (none yet & my preference after the card, N/A), production source quote (none yet except for maybe st.com, so N/A). I don't mind being on the 'wrong' side of CBS AA or its dubious data entry. But there it is. -- Compvox (talk) 11:47, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::ST.com has it listed as both "Context is for Kings" and "Context Is for Kings", sadly. Since the "source" is CBS AA, we'll go by the names as listed on their menu, unless we end up with scripts for these episodes, in which case, we'll get to have a discussion to determine what we want to use, since the Discovery episodes seem to be avoiding title cards for some reason. -- sulfur (talk) 12:14, October 2, 2017 (UTC) First mutineer note The following is in this article: "Michael Burnham is referred to as "the first Starfleet mutineer," but this isn't accurate, with Starfleet mutineers previously depicted in such episodes as ENT: "Hatchery" and "Bound"." In both of those instances one side was under the influence of something, so were those really mutinies? Further, no one seems to have been punished after the fact in those two instances. "First mutineer" might simply mean the first person convicted of mutiny. 31dot (talk) 11:29, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :I thought we didn't allow speculation on pages?! Kidding aside, "Hatchery" repeatedly refers to the mutiny in that episode specifically as a "mutiny". Also, Burnham is likewise technically under the influence of something when she mutinies: i.e., her Vulcan upbringing. If that's not enough, it's also speculated on-screen that she might also be under the influence of having been knocked unconscious by the torchbearer. So, yeah, that incident is just as valid as the other 2 I've cited. --Defiant (talk) 11:42, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::Techincally, that was in the UE Starfleet, not this (the Federation) Starfleet. Kennelly (talk) 11:48, October 2, 2017 (UTC) Burnham was not judged by the court martial as not responsible for her actions due to some external influence(which wouldn't include the way she was raised). No one was convicted of mutiny in the two ENT instances so from a legal standpoint Burnham is the first mutineer. 31dot (talk) 11:52, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::: The first convicted in the Federation Starfleet seems the most likely. But I wouldn't say she was under any influence. She made the choice in her right mind even though she wasn't raised by Humans. And other characters have made sound choices after being incapacitated. -- Compvox (talk) 12:04, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Personally, I'm not really interested in looking for speculative excuses. I think the note is best written as it is, stating what is the truth and what we actually know, rather than delving into speculative drivel. --Defiant (talk) 12:23, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :::: Then again, according to Spock (in ), there was "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence" prior to what was observed on the . --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:26, October 2, 2017 (UTC) It isn't "speculative drivel" to state that no one else has been convicted of mutiny, which is what really matters, as a mutiny can be legal(Garth of Izar claimed his crew mutinied) As for Spock's statement, we might need to wait for the season or even series to finish to figure out how this may or may not jibe with that. TPTB have suggested things like this will be resolved. 31dot (talk) 12:33, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :The definition of a mutiny doesn't require being convicted. Otherwise, the term wouldn't be used in "Hatchery" in the way it is. --Defiant (talk) 12:44, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :It's "speculative drivel" for us to suggest a reason Burnham is referred to as "the first Starfleet mutineer" when there are Starfleet mutineers depicted in "Hatchery" and "Bound". We don't know the reason, so we shouldn't state what we don't know. Best to instead wait til a reason is later established either canonically or by a bginfo source, then incorporate that info into this episode article. --Defiant (talk) 12:50, October 2, 2017 (UTC) (ec) I didn't say that it did. But a casual observer doesn't care about actions that were legal or validly justified. Someone who kills someone else in defense technically committed justified murder, but they aren't usually referred to as murderers, because murderer has a specific connotation(someone convicted of murder). 31dot (talk) 12:53, October 2, 2017 (UTC) We do such things all over this website; in Starfleet General Orders and Regulations we state "Chekov may have misspoke" about the death penalty general order. 31dot (talk) 12:54, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Exactly; all that needs cleaned up, as according to our policies and guidelines, we don't (and shouldn't) allow for such speculations. --Defiant (talk) 12:57, October 2, 2017 (UTC) It's been there for years without a problem. Not to discuss that here but I don't see a problem with noting that characters are not perfect and can make mistakes. 31dot (talk) 12:59, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Ummm... because that much is blatantly obvious and therefore doesn't need to be stated. Afaik, there's always been a problem with speculation on this website. And as you well know, just because something hasn't been dealt with yet doesn't mean it's permissible; it just means it hasn't been dealt with yet. --Defiant (talk) 13:05, October 2, 2017 (UTC) In my real life line of work you would be surprised what is and is not "blatantly obvious" to people. Even if we don't add it for some reason it is not "speculative drivel" to note the simple fact that she was convicted and that's typically what casual observers are discussing. Thanks for this conversation. 31dot (talk) 13:12, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :I don't believe that being convicted is "typically what casual observers are discussing" when talking about a mutineer; I think they just mean someone mutinying, whether convicted or not. Would you care to cite a source that states otherwise? All that being said, I agree it wouldn't be speculative to say Burnham's the only one (so far) who is shown being court-martialled for the mutiny. I seem to recall some officers being put in the brig for mutiny in "Bounty". Is that counted as a conviction or not? I'm genuinely not sure. --Defiant (talk) 13:48, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :::I don't think the brig implies a conviction but I do think the audience cares if our characters are convicted of a charge or not. Also it would be speculation to say her decision was from being under the influence of her foster parenting or a fight with the torchbearer. An officer made a sober choice and was judged to be in the wrong. At least wrong as of this episode. -- Compvox (talk) 14:24, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Lol. It's even speculative to say it was a "sober" decision. At least the speculation about her having been possibly under the influence of losing unconscious as a result of the torchbearer fight is actually canonical, totally unlike any of the other speculations here. --Defiant (talk) 22:09, October 2, 2017 (UTC) Continuity How do we know those places are Janus IV and Starbase 11? They could easily be any other Starbase or Mining Facility.--Tuskin38 (talk) 15:30, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Relating to continuity I thought I saw a female Denobulan when Burnham initially entered the mess hall. 31dot (talk) 14:36, October 3, 2017 (UTC) ::It's possible that one such facility looks much the same as another, much as one Constitution class ship can usually only be distinguished from another visually by the registry and name (hence large printing of same on the saucer). Unless they're said to be the same place, a note remarking on the similarity only would make sense now. --LauraCC (talk) 15:37, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :::I disagree. It's pretty clear that the author intent was to reference these places. And we never got these hangups when it came to the Iconian gateway. -- Capricorn (talk) 21:14, October 3, 2017 (UTC) Which timeline? Has it been established in which timeline this series is supposed to be? If it is to be in the 'Original' timeline, then they have a lot to explain. According to the series description, it takes place 10 years before TOS. As far as I can remember, there were no warp-capable shuttles, no 3D communication devices, no holographic gesture-operated display panels, no ship's computer that could execute site-to-site transports and no replicators (to name but a few things) in TOS, so there certainly shouldn't be 10 years earlier. --RamsayS (talk) 23:14, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :Right now, it's been stated that it's in the original one. A number of things that they have shown have been mentioned or referenced in other shows, and we're three episodes in. We don't know what else is going to come about over the next few months. -- sulfur (talk) 00:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::It was never stated that all those things did not exist in that time frame. The producers have repeatedly stated this is in the same timeline as the other series. You personally do not have to agree, but that's what they have said. 31dot (talk) 03:07, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::I've heard that some of the visual and technological differences are explained in the novel Desperate Hours which has the Discovery characters interact with characters from Pike's Enterprise. And I'm pretty sure they had warp-capable shuttles in TOS. In The Menagerie a shuttlecraft from Starbase 11 was able to pursue the Enterprise, so it had to be warp-capable. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:43, October 4, 2017 (UTC) I don't read novels, I only refer to what I see on TV. And seriously, have you ever seen a 3D communication device, like when Stamets was talking to his research partner and his head came out of the device, on TOS? They are never gonna convince me this is the same timeline. And yes, I know TOS was made 50 years ago, when there were hardly normal TV-screens, but these differences are too big.--RamsayS (talk) 21:18, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Given that holo-communicators were also used for a couple of episodes on DS9 and then disappeared from the rest of that show, I don't have a problem with them appearing on Discovery and then disappearing for a while too. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 22:06, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::TNG viewscreens were depicted as being holographic images, though camera angles, as well. Again, you personally can believe whatever you wish, but since the producers say it is the same timeline, we do on this wiki. 31dot (talk) 22:10, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :::If you don't like reading novels, you can always download the audiobook version. It might help you to accept Discovery being in the same timeline as TOS. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:18, October 6, 2017 (UTC) Holographic technology definitely existed in the twenty third century, as was established by Tuvok in the episode "Flashback." He did mention that they were "less accurate," if I remember correctly, but nevertheless they did exist, and in Discovery you can see that they were less accurate, as they did hiccup a lot. Just because it wasn't shown in TOS, doesn't mean it didn't exist then...aside from in the holodeck or the EMH, holograms were barely even shown in the twenty-fourth century. Also, the Copernicus was a shuttle that did have warp drive, true that was later; but it was during this century. It was never established in canon when they came about, therefore this doesn't violate that. We never see a Constitution class ship performing a saucer separation either, but they could do that. The only thing I'm confused about is the cloaking device, which was always implied to come from the Romulans, when they made an alliance in the 2260s. Romulans even used Klingon ships. But still, them obtaining cloaking tech from the Romulans wasn't actually solidly confirmed in canon to my knowledge, just fan speculation, so another explanation is possible. Maybe the Klingons traded their plasma torpedo for a cloaking device and that's what set up . Too early to tell, but it could be. The Romulans don't like to be shown and this could be their way of getting involved in the war without being involved...so to speak. Far too early to tell. It's definitely prime timeline. By the way, I see that someone removed the Moons of Andoria reference...why is that? It was mentioned in the show. I am curious how to write an article like that, since Andoria already is a moon, does that mean that the moons of Andoria are moons of a moon? I guess such a thing isn't impossible in nature but I don't know. --Noah Tall (talk) 12:11, October 6, 2017 (UTC) Funny that most replies here above give examples from TNG, DS9 and VOY, which play in the 24th century, not the 23rd. And the 'Just because it wasn't shown in TOS, doesn't mean it didn't exist then' is a very tiresome old excuse. I can't wait to see with what ludicrous explanation the writers come up with. Maybe it's something like this: The Discovery (and the Glenn) were top-secret developments with the latest technology, and they were both destroyed and their secrets with it. So when they built the Enterprise, they went back to tiny 2D viewscreens, food synthesizers (that used programmed cards instead of voice activation) instead of replicators, computers that speak in robotic mode instead of human mode, etc, etc, etc.--RamsayS (talk) 00:19, October 7, 2017 (UTC) The problem with your theory is that the Enterprise was already built at this time, after all took place two years earlier. The rest of what you say makes sense. It seems that it is top secret (above top secret even). The black Starfleet badges makes me think it may even be a Section 31 ship. Just a theory. Honestly, I think it would be absurd to say that holocommunicators didn't exist at this time. I mean seriously we have holograms in the real world...they'll probably advance even more than what we've seen in Star Trek. It's the writer's job to make the show make sense, and using 20th century tech in a show set in the 23rd century makes no sense. And another thing, yes; my reference did come from VOY, but NOT the 24th century. The reference was made by Tuvok, referring to 23rd century holograms. Now yeah, the design of the doesn't look like it fits well into what our understanding was of that time, but Discovery definitely has some TOS throwbacks. You'll notice there's a lot more retro-futurism when it comes to the design of the Discovery compared to the Shenzhou. It fits perfectly to me. I think the main problem people are having is just accepting it. The problem is based upon what people thought it was like during that era...we have nothing except verbal references; nothing was ever shown therefore the writers can make up anything, and as long as it fits; it's fine. Because there's nothing to say it isn't canon, because we never saw anything in this era. I always assumed that the uniforms would look like they did in The Cage or Where No Man Has Gone Before, but that's just because that's how I interpreted the canon. I was obviously wrong. --Noah Tall (talk) 17:42, October 7, 2017 (UTC) : Oh please, no Section 31, I hate Section 31. It's such a cheap plot device. BTW, I have nothing against the uniforms. I like them.--RamsayS (talk) 22:04, October 7, 2017 (UTC) The fact they are at war with the Klingons means that it is Prime Reality. In the Kelvin Reality they have not had the war yet. --T-888 (talk) 18:02, October 7, 2017 (UTC) References In the reference section, I see redlinks for both reaction cube and test cube. Before anyone creates the articles, any chance these are one and the same? Moons of Andoria By the way; what happened with the Moons of Andoria reference? (see above comment) --Noah Tall (talk) 17:45, October 7, 2017 (UTC) :Don't know, but that needs to be covered on Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant moons, not on a page of its own. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:12, October 7, 2017 (UTC)